Therefore, the next item will be the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement. Ken Skates.

Diolch, Llywydd. Yesterday, a statement was made in the House of Commons by the UK Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark, on the proposed Swansea bay tidal lagoon project. 

The UK Government made it clear that, 

'it would be irresponsible to enter into a contract with the provider' as the

'proposal has not demonstrated that it could be value for money'. 

The UK Government has concluded that the project should not be provided with public funding. This decision by the UK Government not to support the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is deeply disappointing and a further blow to Swansea following on from the UK Government’s decision not to electrify the Great Western main line to Swansea. Despite our serious offer to help the UK Government make this proposal work, they are letting an important opportunity slip through their fingers. In doing so, they have badly let down the people of Wales.

This announcement demonstrates that the UK Government has, once again, made energy policy decisions for Wales based upon English energy priorities rather than reflecting the opportunities here in Wales. We have significant sustainable energy resources in Wales, not available in England, that we must harness if we are to meet our decarbonisation targets as part of our wider UK obligations. The UK Government has failed to recognise that the Welsh energy mix will be different to that in England.

We have called for the UK Government to respond to the Hendry review of tidal lagoons on many occasions. Even now they have failed to give an adequate response to the important recommendations that he has made. The Welsh Government is clear: the decision whether or not to back tidal lagoons is a UK policy decision. They have the ability and the financial backing to shoulder risk in areas of new and emerging technology that other smaller Governments across the UK simply do not.

From day one, the Welsh Government recognised the transformational potential of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project and we made an offer of significant funding support to the UK Government to help make the project a reality. Sadly, the UK Government’s short-sightedness and complete lack of ambition has thwarted this project—a project that could have positioned Wales and the UK as a world leader in a new global industry. We have consistently stated that the Welsh Government stands ready to work closely with the UK Government and other administrations across the UK to develop a vibrant UK marine energy industry.

We are in no doubt as to the potential that marine energy represents to Wales, not only from a decarbonisation and energy policy perspective, but also from a social and economic benefit perspective, too. Indeed, marine energy offers huge potential to the UK as a whole in terms of developing know-how, technology and supply chain developments, which would be of value to future international trade.  

We have held this view for many years and this is why we have prioritised the growth of a vibrant energy industry as a key tool for economic development. Wales has an excellent track record in supporting marine energy. Over €100 million of EU funding, along with domestic support, has been and continues to be invested through the Welsh Government to support wave and tidal stream projects. EU funding is supporting the Morlais west Anglesey tidal stream demonstration zone, the south Pembrokeshire wave demonstration zone, as well as wave and tidal stream developers. We also supported Marine Energy Wales who are developing a marine energy test area in the Milford Haven waterway. Pembrokeshire and Anglesey are becoming hubs for wave and tidal stream development, but further development will be dependent on revenue support from the UK Government.

Marine developers, who have ambitious plans to deploy their devices in Welsh waters, will view this announcement as the UK Government, sadly, closing the door on the industry. Some are already considering scaling back their plans in Wales. I therefore call on the UK Government to rethink their long-term support for the marine industry.

My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs will be writing to business and energy Secretary, Greg Clark, to stress the importance of supporting the renewable energy sector in Wales. We've already stressed the importance of funding the most affordable technologies, such as onshore wind, to keep the overall costs of support low.

The Welsh Government has a long-standing commitment to the renewable sector and we'll be seeking the views of the industry and respective bodies through an energy summit to better understand how momentum, particularly in the area of marine energy, is maintained over the coming months and years.

In light of this disappointing decision, we are working closely with leaders in the region to better assess the wider economic implications and to consider what action can reasonably be taken. I've already held discussions with the leader of Swansea council about other projects that can support economic development in the area, and I'll be having further such discussions with leaders in the area over the coming months.

My colleagues and I will keep Members appraised of progress on this and will also be pressing UK Ministers on the outcomes.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to this statement. I wish it was a different type of statement, a statement welcoming the good news that we should have got from Westminster yesterday. I make no bones about it: I believe a positive decision was what was required yesterday, and I lobbied right up until the last minute to try and achieve that positive decision. Regrettably, it did not come through, and I commend everyone, from the Welsh Government right the way across the political divide in this Chamber, and those in civic society and in the business world, who championed the cause of the Swansea tidal lagoon. I bitterly regret that a more positive decision was not made yesterday, albeit, it is fair to say, that the numbers were always challenging if you looked at it on the economics of just the raw power that was generated.

And that, Cabinet Secretary, would be my first question to you. The UK Government have arrived at this decision based on their analysis of the information before them. The Secretary of State, in his statement yesterday, highlighted how Welsh Government have had at least 10 meetings with his department in this calendar year. Can you confirm that your officials have arrived at the same decision that officials within Greg Clark's department arrived at, or if there is evidence to prove that that decision was incorrect, based on the same paperwork that the officials from the two Governments were looking at, will you make that information available so that, obviously, we can have the fullest account of how the decision-making process arrived at the conclusion that it arrived at?

I'd also like to understand how the Welsh Government will be taking forward new opportunities. Obviously, the Secretary of State, in his statement yesterday, highlighted how the UK Government are in possession of alternative offers, alternative bids—I hope I've categorised it correctly, but certainly alternative proposals were definitely something that was put before the House of Commons yesterday in the statement. It would be beneficial to understand what role the Welsh Government will be playing to engage with those potential alternative offers that the Secretary of State identified in his statement yesterday.

What, for me, is really important here now is that, obviously, we assess where we can go from the position we find ourselves in today, which I say, quite openly, is not a position I would want us to be in, full stop. I wanted us to be in a position today of welcoming the Swansea tidal lagoon. I pay tribute, as I said, to all Members who have worked tirelessly on this. But it is a fact that we are in an era now where we need to assess how we can promote some of the most positive energy opportunities that exist around the whole coast of Wales. Since I've been in this Chamber, there have been two proposals—one of the Severn barrage and now the Swansea tidal lagoon—and neither one has come through. But what we do know is that raw asset does exist on our coastline and it does need to be tapped into and developed.

I would also ask the Cabinet Secretary, given that, listening to his statement today, I could have closed my eyes and heard the same argument coming from the opposition benches when he announced the Circuit of Wales proposals that were put before the Welsh Government, about supporting that particular project, where, in his opinion, obviously, that project was unaffordable and didn't stack up to the test that the Welsh Government had laid down. Now, being in the position to make these decisions, obviously the Cabinet Secretary would understand the process that is involved, and the process that was outlined by the UK Government yesterday seemed very familiar to the process that the Welsh Government was outlining in its decision when it came to the Circuit of Wales. So, I'd be grateful to understand how the Welsh Government will in future work to deliver major infrastructure projects, not just in energy but other major infrastructure projects, the length and breadth of Wales that can give developers confidence to look at Wales as an attractive destination.

In closing my remarks, I would just point out that, sadly, the statement only came into my possession two minutes before I stood up. So, I'm not quite sure what happened this afternoon. Some Members might not have even had that statement. It is normally a courtesy that Members do get sight of the statement. I appreciate it's a courtesy that doesn't have to be extended, but it is a courtesy that normally does happen, and I'd hope that he would look at what the communication problem was with the statement. Thank you.

Can I thank the Member for his questions? I apologise for the lateness of his receipt of the statement. I, too, received the statement, due to it being redrafted at very late stages, just a few minutes ago. But I have to say, I've been there when tough decisions have had to be made, and the Member identifies the Circuit of Wales decision as one primary example of how, in the face of intense public pressure and campaigns for a project to be given the go-ahead, you have to make sure that you assess it on the grounds of value for money and the wider benefits that a project can bring. But this project is distinctly different to the Circuit of Wales. The Circuit of Wales would have been on balance sheet. It would have required a potential £300 million of Welsh Government spend be put on hold as a consequence of that adjudication being that it had to be on balance sheet. The Circuit of Wales was not backed by an independent review by a former energy Minister. And, let's just remember, the main point of this project was that it was a pathfinder project and, as a pathfinder project, you would always expect additional costs to be incurred. The value-for-money test of a pathfinder project should be very different because of the opportunity costs that could be incurred in not pressing ahead with a particular project.

In terms of the Member wishing that it could have been a positive decision, I reflect on possibly what would have happened had David Cameron not called for a referendum on our membership of the EU. He would likely still be there as Prime Minister, we would not be facing the catastrophe of failed Brexit negotiations and, in all probability, given his personal support for this scheme and its inclusion in the 2015 Conservative Party manifesto, we would have seen a very different decision being reached yesterday. We may well have also seen a different decision over electrification. And for those reasons, I put responsibility for the decisions that have been made firmly at the door of Theresa May as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party in Government in the UK.

Now, in terms of engagement, the developers contest the figures that have been produced. I received the detailed appraisal today. I've asked my officials to carry out a thorough assessment of it, but, again, as a pathfinder project, costs are always going to be higher. If we look at the development of onshore and offshore wind, costs were higher 10 years ago than they are today, and it's the opportunity costs that we now face having been lost. The opportunity costs could be substantial indeed if Wales does not become a world leader.

Now, the Member rightly identifies the point that was made in Parliament yesterday—the assurance that the UK Government is in receipt of proposals from what they say are other promoters of tidal energy schemes. I think we need to know who, and where those schemes are being promoted and where they would be installed, because we don't know, as of yet, whether any of those schemes—I understand that there are perhaps as many as half a dozen—are based on Swansea bay. We don't know who the promoters of those schemes are. We don't know what the costs will be of seeing those schemes through to completion. So, we await with very, very great interest the detail of those particular proposals.

I think we also need to make sure that discussions are maintained with city deal partners. I met yesterday with leaders of the Swansea bay city deal, and it's absolutely essential that we look not only at the future of marine energy in Swansea bay, but also at the wider economic development and regeneration of the region. I'm acutely conscious of the impact that this decision and the u-turning on electrification has had on the communities of Swansea bay, and in particular Swansea city itself. Granted, the UK Government will not be to blame for this, but, in addition, Swansea faced relegation this year from the Premier League. All of these factors contribute to a negative impact in terms of confidence and self-belief. That has to be addressed. The Welsh Government will work relentlessly and tirelessly with the local authority and partners across the Swansea bay city region to find investment projects that can rebuild the confidence of the people of Swansea and ensure that the marine energy industry in Swansea bay, and across Wales, has a very strong and positive future indeed.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement, and thank him also for being able to fit it in this afternoon? But I have to say, as a representative who lives in Swansea, this has been an absolutely devastating decision. I don't know if I can do justice to the unbridled fury that people were communicating with me last night about this decision. Basically, words cannot convey my depth of devastation. This is a wonderful project. There's tremendous potential for tidal energy in Swansea bay and the Bristol channel—the second largest tidal range in the world. People are always saying, 'You haven't got any resources in Wales'. We have, you know; it's just we don't tap them. This decision is incredible in its foolhardiness, I have to say, denying us releasing the tremendous potential for tidal energy. As you've said, this first pathfinder project—a pilot scheme, obviously—was not the biggest, and quite a small one, but five far bigger ones would follow, and Wales would then eventually become completely self-sustaining in energy terms. That is the renewable future, surely.

This comes on the same day as we've had a third runway expansion in Heathrow and obviously, a previous announcement about nuclear energy receiving more public subsidy. In other words, the idea is already there—public subsidy for large energy projects—and as the tidal lagoon companies say themselves, yes, there would be an increase in energy prices on bills for consumers, as Lee Waters pointed out earlier: 30p per year for households, compared to an extra £15 per year for nuclear. That's the comparison. Obviously, the tidal lagoon company—lots of us have been meeting with them over the years. Plaid Cymru first passed a policy of having a tidal lagoon in Swansea bay in our Swansea conference in 2006. Some of us have been working on this for nearly 15 years with the company, and it is immensely devastating what's happening. The company have heard nothing from the Westminster Government for two years. You've got to ask—and I would ask you now to confirm—what lines of communication have there been? The company says they've heard next to nothing from Government for two years:

'The lack of engagement with us during this process has been highly disturbing'.

That's the chair of Tidal Lagoon Power saying that. We've got to understand how we arrived at this decision 18 months after Charles Hendry and his superb report said it would be a no-regrets decision and a no-brainer. So, all of a sudden now, 18 months of waiting for a big enough decision to try and bury this bad news, and then it seeps out after lots of delays, and we're devastatingly disappointed that innovative, world-leading technology now looks to have been denied to Wales. I know there's a feeling in Westminster sometimes that little Wales couldn't be a world leader in anything, but we could have been here, and I want to know from the Cabinet Secretary how he intends to take this whole agenda forward, because the tides are still there, ebbing and flowing as we speak, only not being utilised for the benefit of the people of this nation.

It's the same strike price as Hinkley Point—like I said, a negligible addition to annual electricity bills for consumers. We've lost electrification to Swansea. Despite electrification being a live process in railways north of Manchester, it's somehow obsolete when it comes to Wales, and the Secretary of State for Wales says we're better off with diesel, and people say diesel is adversely affecting our health. Yes, it is adversely affecting our health.

More about the Secretary of State tomorrow no doubt, but two questions to finish. There was all-party support here which, to be fair, has been reflected. Westminster crushes that despite all-party agreement here. We really need to take control over our future generally, but particularly now in energy terms. So, how is the Cabinet Secretary going to move this agenda forward? Because I have an abiding feeling, after this huge decision, with any marine energy project in Wales now—how is that going to be viewed outside? How is that going to be viewed? Dead in the water?

My other question is: there is a very important debate tomorrow on a motion of no confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales. Westminster's man in Wales, certainly. This decision has crushed us. Will you be supporting that no-confidence vote?

Can I thank the Member for his contribution, the points that he's raised, and the obvious fury that he's relayed from Swansea bay? I think it was Shakespeare who said something along the lines of 'could not wield the words to matter', and right now I think people are lost for words in expressing their anger, their frustration, their disappointment with the UK Government for taking a short-sighted view of marine energy.

As I said earlier, what we wanted to see happen through this pathfinder project was the creation of an entirely new industry that Wales could lead the world in—an entirely new industry with enormous intellectual property owned by Welsh-based companies. That would have created jobs and opportunities not just in Swansea bay, but in the other locations where tidal lagoons were proposed. It could have led to a huge increase in opportunities in terms of the visitor economy as well. But all is not lost. We made an offer of £200 million to get this project over the line. What we intend to do is to host a marine energy summit in Swansea as soon as possible, with key stakeholders, with leaders in industry, to discuss how we can maintain the momentum that we've built in terms of marine energy in recent years, how we could potentially utilise the £200 million that we've made available for this particular project, how we can look at other proposals—hopefully by then we'll have some detail on the alternatives—how we could potentially use those alternative proposals to benefit Swansea bay and, indeed, the rest of Wales, and how collectively we can build on the Welsh Government investments to date to ensure that Wales maintains its position as a global leader in terms of marine energy. Because I fear, Llywydd, that if Welsh Government doesn't take this action for the people, with the people, and on behalf of the people of Swansea bay, then we'll end up with the French taking ownership of this project and taking a lead globally. It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that could be granted to the French as a consequence of the UK Government making this decision.

So, we will not abandon the sector. Far from it; we'll look at how we can build on those projects in south Pembrokeshire, in Milford Haven and also in Anglesey, and we'll look at how we can go on building the strength and the capabilities, the research capabilities, within the sector as well.

I have to say, the Member touched on the crucial point of energy independence and energy security, which is so important to a vibrant economy. The United States of America managed to secure energy independence through its course of action on fracking. We in the Welsh Labour Government have been absolutely committed to securing as great a degree of energy independence from renewable sources. We remain absolutely committed to that cause and we will explore every avenue to deliver greater, greener growth in terms of energy production. We're determined to ensure that fairer opportunities for economic development are passed right across the regions. I'm acutely aware of the frustrations that exist in Swansea bay and elsewhere in Wales in terms of regional inequality. That is the whole point of the new economic action plan—to iron out inequalities across Wales and to make sure that those regions that currently feel marginalised feel emboldened and empowered to be as strong as they can possibly be, based on their existing capabilities. And, within the Swansea bay region, we know that one of the finest strengths that they possess right now concerns marine energy and we will support that region all the way.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I, like all of us in this Chamber, am deeply, deeply disappointed by the UK Government's announcement yesterday. Yet again, the UK Government has shown utter contempt for my region by reneging as well on the promise to deliver electrification to Swansea and now have scuppered Swansea's chance to lead the world in innovative renewable energy.

I shouldn't be surprised by yesterday's announcement, because the press seems to have known for months that the tidal lagoon was going to be rejected. I had hoped that furious negotiations were going on behind the scenes. Cabinet Secretary, in your discussions with the UK Government and Tidal Lagoon Power, was it at all clear that the two sides were even talking to each other, or do you believe, as I do, that the UK Government were merely seeking time to build a case to support their decision to reject the proposals?

Cabinet Secretary, the UK Government shouldn't be surprised by the depth of feeling from this Chamber—and not only in this Chamber, from my constituents as well, and I've just been reading e-mails regarding how they feel. All sides in this Chamber have made it abundantly clear that we have supported this project—even the Government’s own advisers supported this project, and it’s shameful that Theresa May has ignored all of that support.

The UK Government cite costs as the sole reason for rejecting this bid, claiming offshore wind is much more cost effective. Cabinet Secretary, in your interactions with the UK Government Ministers, has the significant investment in offshore wind been discussed? Offshore wind is only cheaper now because of heavy subsidies in its earlier development.

And, finally, Cabinet Secretary, are you aware of whether or not the UK Government considered energy security when reaching their decision on the tidal lagoon? The UK is currently at the mercy of geopolitically unstable nations for much of their energy needs, and the tidal lagoon would help the UK become more self-sufficient. So, I thank you for your support on this, Cabinet Secretary. You have my party's support in fighting this decision by the UK Government. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank Caroline Jones for the contribution she's made today, her comments and her questions? First of all, with regard to the speculation that has appeared over many weeks now in the press, it would appear to me—perhaps I'm just becoming more cynical, but it would appear to me that a decision perhaps was reached some time ago and that an opportunity was being looked for in order to conceal this decision behind it. And yesterday, with the vote on Heathrow, does appear to have been a great opportunity for the UK Government to have buried the Swansea bay tidal lagoon beneath a third runway at Heathrow.

It's also ironic and tragic that, yesterday, Welsh Government was able to announce a hugely ambitious world-first proposal for test facilities for the rail industry here in Wales and, at that same time, the UK Government was turning down an opportunity to develop a new world-class industry for Wales—incredibly ironic that these two decisions came on the same day, but tragic also.

As I've said, we will not give up on the sector in Wales and the Member is absolutely right that offshore wind power generation, in its inception, was very expensive, and costs have been reduced over time as it's been mainstreamed. In terms of energy security and whether this was a factor in their decision, as far as I'm aware, it was not. However, as I say, the detailed appraisal was received just today. I'm going through it currently—I've asked officials to analyse it as well.

I think what's important, as we move forward, is that we continue to engage with the sector, even if the UK Government turns its back on the sector. It would appear, based on what Tidal Lagoon Power have said, that discussions broke down some time ago between them and the UK Government, in which case I must come to the conclusion—it's the same conclusion that Charles Hendry has reached—that, actually, the UK Government could have said that they weren't going to support it many, many months ago and saved the company and saved an entire region the heartache of the decision being delayed and delayed, and hopes being raised in the intervening time.

The proposal straddles the boundary of my constituency and that of my friend and colleague David Rees. I think that Dai Lloyd did mention the anger and the betrayal, and there's been a tremendous feeling amongst people of anger and betrayal. I went out last night and people wanted to come and tell me how angry and betrayed they were. But that wasn't what hurt—the bit that hurt was those who said, 'Well, we were never going to get it. We never get anything in Swansea. We're always left behind', and this feeling, really, of a lack of hope. I think that that is the bit that I found most hurtful—that people saw the lack of hope, that we were on the periphery of the Westminster Government's radar and we were very much left behind.

I think that you've got to remember that prototypes cost more—they always cost more. Can I take people back to wind and solar, when they first came out and they were incredibly expensive? Do you remember those people were saying, 'Gas is cheaper. Why are you doing this? We could be using gas. There's plenty of gas around. We can be using gas turbines; it would save lots of money'? Do you remember that?

Also, can I mention nuclear? Calder Hall, created in 1956—they've had 62 years to bring down the cost of nuclear and still they have failed, with what we're paying now for the electricity that's going to be generated in Hinkley Point. That is an example of something that hasn't come down in price to the level we expected, but we would never have built Calder Hall if it had been done on a price comparison against coal—coal was a lot cheaper. In fact, every power station in Britain would be coal, because coal was cheaper than any other method at the time the new methods came in.

Can I just use two historical examples? Because I know that Suzy Davies did that in her IWA article, which I pay credit to, but also two that she didn't use: Stephenson's Rocket—I can just imagine now these people saying, 'Rail? I can get faster from Stockton to Darlington on horseback than I can by rail. What a stupid idea to bring in rail. It's much cheaper and quicker on horseback'. And the other one is, of course—let's talk about steamboats, because steamboats were small, weren't very successful. Sail was so much better. But they developed the technology and it created steamships, which made the world a much smaller place in terms of the time it took to move around.

I have no doubt that Swansea will have a tidal lagoon. My concern, and I ask the Cabinet Secretary if he shares it, is that we'll be the ninth or tenth in the world to have it, we won't have the design capacity, we won't have developed all the skills in the area; we'll be buying in the technology like we do now for solar and like we do now for wind. Wind was mainly developed in Denmark and Germany, and that's where the design is, that's where things are made. Those people who live in Swansea will know that we've had a lot of transport activity taking devices, because they've come in by boat and they've been taken because they aren't ours, built by us. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me again that we've lost the chance to be the first in the world to start creating tidal energy? We will have it, but we'll be buying in the technology from abroad, rather than developing it.

Yes, I agree entirely. I talked about the advances that the French have made, and I am in no doubt that some of the competitors that we faced in this field are cheering the decision by UK Government. I think Mike Hedges makes a very, very important point that, if you're not open to new ideas and new technology, you're not going to make progress; you're not going to maintain your competitiveness. And, recently, the editor-in-chief of The Economist globally said that the greatest threat the global economy faces right now is protectionism, and it was part of the presentation that he gave on the new divide—the new political divide, the new technological and economic divide—and it can largely be characterised as the open versus the closed: those who are open to new ideas versus those who are closed to new ideas, those who are open to technology versus those who are suspicious and closed to the emergence of new technology, those who are open to outsiders, open to challenge, versus those who are closed off from challenge and closed to the potential that outsiders bring as well. And I think this demonstrates most clearly that the UK Government under the current leadership of Theresa May is most certainly closed, and it's probably time that they were closed right down. 

I do fear that there is a sentiment in Swansea—a very, very deep sentiment—of having been left behind. For that reason, the city deal becomes even more important and must deliver for the people of Swansea bay and must draw down the resources not just from Welsh Government, but also from UK Government. I'm able to say to the Member that I'd already agreed to commence a piece of work with the leader of Swansea council concerning a number of investment projects and regeneration prospects within Swansea. Of course, we will also be taking forward the work on the metro vision but that, in all likelihood, given its reliance on rail, will also require a commitment from the current or future, potentially future Governments for considerable investment in infrastructure, and we know that there is a very poor record of UK Government spend in terms of rail infrastructure in Wales, perhaps highlighted best by the cancellation of the electrification of the main line. 

In the future, we must see a fair share not just come to Wales, but a fair share of resource that's spent in Wales spent fairly in Swansea bay and other parts of Wales.  

I agree entirely with Mike Hedges's comments, but I would like to extend the debate slightly. I think this decision by the Westminster Government actually besmirches us all as politicians. When you have a policy statement made in a manifesto that you will support a tidal lagoon in Swansea just three years ago, and you break that manifesto promise, when you're in a position to reject £1.3 billion for an important development in Swansea, but are willing to give £1 billion to 12 MPs in Northern Ireland just to keep your Government in power, then this is what gives politics a bad name.

And I am not surprised that people are saying, ‘Well, we get nothing from this system’, and there is a risk for us all in the way in which the Westminster Government has made this decision, the way that they have extended the process, and the way that they commissioned an independent report and then rejected that report’s findings because they didn’t like those findings.

And it leaves us in something of a quandary, I think. I know that the Cabinet Secretary wants to work positively in Wales, but what message has this sent to all of those companies involved with marine energy? You’ve mentioned some of them, and I will be visiting Anglesey myself at the end of the week—I will see Morlais and SEACAMS. There is over £100 million of European funding and Welsh Government funding that has been invested in this sector, and now they see that the Government doesn’t want to support that sector. Because it’s not just the proposals that are important—you must bring those proposals to fruition, and that means they need grid connections, they need a contract for difference. In order to turn those proposals into real energy-producing methods, the Westminster Government has to make the same decision in the context of these proposals as they have refused to do in the context of the tidal lagoon.

So, although I welcome the fact that you are going to hold a summit in Swansea, a marine energy summit was held in Swansea just a year ago, where the whole sector was behind the tidal lagoon, and wanted to see it as something that was a signal of belief in this sector. So, how are you going to restore confidence in this sector now that the Westminster Government has told every investor, large and small, ‘Go away, we’re not interested in this sector anymore; we’re only interested in nuclear and the offshore wind sectors’? That is a very difficult message.

Can I also ask you what you as a Government will now do with the £200 million that you put on the table for this proposal? Is that £200 million now available for delivering low-carbon projects of this kind, be it marine or on land? I have no information about this, but because, I’m sure, the company behind this plan will have to wind up in some way or another, and we want to avoid what Mike Hedges referred to, namely that we accept inward investment rather than owning the technology ourselves, is it possible for the Welsh Government to consider how they could go into partnership with either the current company, Tidal Lagoon Power, or other prospective companies, so that we can retain this technology in Wales and retain leadership here in Wales? Is that £200 million available for that purpose? Because it appears to me that although you rejected Leanne Wood’s ideas on an energy company for Wales, you do have resources here to make a difference and to show investors that Wales is open for marine energy businesses.

If I can just conclude with a more political point, except it wasn't spoken by me, it was spoken by the chief executive of Tidal Lagoon Power, Mark Shorrock. When this decision was made yesterday, he said it was a

'vote of no interest in Wales, no confidence in British manufacturing and no care for the planet'.

We will have the opportunity tomorrow to show that we have no confidence in this decision as well. 

Can I thank Simon Thomas for his contribution? I think given the points that he made right at the outset of his contribution, it's quite clear that the UK Government has become a master of both pork barrel politics and broken dreams, having invested so much in so few votes within the House of Commons but letting down so many people in Wales by taking the decision that it has. I think what it says to industry is not helpful one bit and it also contrasts with what we're saying to the sector, which is that we will support you in every and any way that we possibly can help you. I think we've demonstrated that with the investment that has been made and that I've already spoken about.

Clearly, it's not for Welsh Government to plug UK Government funding gaps. The Welsh Government has neither the power nor the resources to compensate the UK Government, and Welsh Government isn't in a position to take the project forward alone. But, as I highlighted just before, there is the £200 million that we'd put on offer for this project to get it over the line. I think we're going to be pretty open to investment opportunities provided that that funding can be used in a way that enables it to be drawn down through the particular funding stream that it sits in. I think some of the discussions that need to take place will happen at that summit that I've already announced, however I've asked officials—and I know this has happened right across Government today—we've all asked officials to engage with key partners in the sector to ascertain as soon as possible what the likely implications of the decision are, and means and ways of us supporting those businesses within the sector to continue to grow.

I'm in no doubt that businesses, business leaders and loyal, decent, skilled workers within this sector are feeling pretty bruised today. That's why we've asked for immediate engagement between officials and those people to take place. But, in the months to come, we will look at every opportunity to take what is a strong sector in Wales to a position of greatness. That may well be without the assistance of Welsh Government, it may well be without Tidal Lagoon Power taking forward this particular project, but we are absolutely determined to grow the industry here in Wales, and in particular in Swansea bay.   

It is very difficult to understand, really, how we got from that meeting here with Charles Hendry some time ago now, where there was such positive cross-party support for the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay and tidal lagoons further afield in Wales. In fact, I can remember Charles Hendry saying how struck he was by the strength and depth of that cross-party support, and yet here we are today with this decision after much delay. It really does, I think, leave a bitter taste in all of our mouths, considering that process and the ultimate decision. 

I know that in Newport, and I know in Cardiff, there's a great deal of interest and support for the tidal lagoons that are proposed for either side of the mouth of the River Usk. From my constituency office, I can see the amazing rise and fall of the River Usk, which is such a natural phenomenon that strikes so many people who visit Newport, and, obviously, that applies to the estuary as well. And I know that very many people are simply amazed, really, that at a time when we're looking for renewable energy, and we're all so clear about the positives of renewable energy, that wonderful natural phenomenon remains unharnessed and, as yet, there are no projects in the immediate offing that offer the opportunity to harness that incredible energy on a daily basis.

I know that there will be a great deal of anger at this decision further afield than Swansea and Swansea bay, and that will extend to Newport as well. There are people who want to look at the possibilities of going ahead with those lagoons around the mouth of the River Usk regardless of what happens with Swansea bay, because some of the economies of scale are different, but obviously Swansea bay was the pathfinder, as the Cabinet Secretary has mentioned, and it would have looked at some of the environmental effects and environmental issues. It's quite difficult, actually, to perhaps come to a considered judgement on some of those aspects without the actual experience of having that lagoon in Swansea bay and those aspects monitored and detailed. But I just wonder, really, Cabinet Secretary, what you can say about the wider picture in Wales, including those proposals for either side of the mouth of the River Usk in the light of this decision that has now been taken, because, as you rightly said, it was a wider, bigger picture. It really should have been considered, the Swansea bay proposal, in terms of its pathfinder nature and the other lagoons that could have followed off the Welsh coast and much further afield. Is it your understanding that there was adequate consideration of that wider picture? If not, is there any mileage in returning to that bigger picture, and even at this late stage looking at the overall vision and how that should be assessed?

And just finally, Llywydd, a further aspect: people pointed to the tourism opportunities and benefits that would have followed from the establishment of a tidal lagoon, but another aspect, of course, was community benefit, and there was a great deal of interest, excitement and, indeed, forward planning in Newport as to what could have been done with the income that would have been generated in community benefit from those local lagoons were they to proceed, and I think that's another very unfortunate aspect of this decision that has been handed down from on high.

Can I thank John Griffiths for his contribution? I'm conscious of time, but I would like to put on record my thanks to Charles Hendry for the work that he did. He produced a report that was compelling in terms of the evidence provided to support taking forward this project as a pathfinder, and I'm sure that Members across this Chamber would wish to thank him for the commitment that he showed throughout the process of compiling that report and seeking evidence.

John Griffiths is absolutely right: the pathfinder project had cross-party support in this Chamber and, indeed, it had support from across Wales, because it was a pathfinder project that could have paved the way for lagoons from the north to the south. Now, we need to understand what the alternative proposals are and whether they could form an alternative pathfinder for lagoons to be built here in Wales and, indeed, whether any of the proposals concern Swansea bay at this very moment in time. We need to understand what the details are and we need to have information shared with us given our determination as a Welsh Government to proceed with tidal power. But I have to wonder whether doing this with UK Government leadership is a realistic prospect, whether delivery through UK Government leadership can be achieved given yesterday's decision and strong, negative message that it sends out to the industry. I can only conclude that, perhaps, lagoons will come only when Theresa May goes. I have to say as well that the benefits of tidal power and, particularly of this pathfinder project, the economic benefits, I think, are well known. The social benefits, though, would have been enormous too. The benefits in terms of the confidence and the identity of Swansea and Swansea Bay would have been enormous; to have become a global leader in a new green industry. I'm not sure that this is really fully understood at Westminster in the current UK Government.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.